Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreIn 2006 the Tamil Nadu Government issued an order (G.O. dated 23 May 2006) allowing any qualified Hindu to be appointed as an archaka (temple priest). Petitioners representing Adi Saiva Sivachariyars argued that some temples follow Agamas (traditional temple-ritual texts) which require priests from a particular denomination, and that the order ignored this. The petitioners relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Seshammal (1972), which had upheld the abolition of hereditary succession while recognising that Agamic requirements can be relevant to appointments.
The Court held that religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 is subject to the Constitution, so a government order cannot override constitutional guarantees, including Article 14. Where the Agamas for a particular temple prescribe that priests must come from a particular denomination, that prescription must be followed, provided it does not conflict with constitutional values such as the ban on caste-based exclusion. The Court held that the blanket rule in the 2006 G.O. has the potential to conflict with Seshammal, so its validity depends on the facts of each appointment. The writ petitions were disposed of on that basis, and each future challenge will be decided on the specific temple's Agamas and customs.
Appointments to priestly roles in temples cannot be settled by one blanket rule. The traditions of the particular temple, read within the Constitution, decide the question, and disputes are resolved case by case.
